State Prosecuction of President, and Finding New American Leadership In Both Parties

Reaction: Pelosi Takes Impeachment Option Off Table

Whether Congress does or does not impeach is irrelevant. The issue is whether the President will be prosecuted by State officials or international war crimes prosecutors.

If the states refuse to act, the only thing protecting this Constitution is the credible threat of a war crimes tribunal; or a check by foreign fighters. When domestic political and legal forces refuse to assert the rule of law, this is definition of a loss of sovereignty and a breakdown of law and order.

American self-governance shows every sign of collapsing. Although perhaps a ploy to attract the RNC voters, Pelosi's statement is stunning in that it could backfire. Leaders eliminate abuse, not lawful options to protect the rule of law.

One view: This is a sign of a leadership problem Ref; however, Bulldog doubts its off the table; yet, even if impeachment is still an option, the States have the power to act outside congress: They can lawfully prosecute the President. This explains how. The States should proceed on the assumption Congress does nothing and prosecute the President.

* * *

The Constitution provides for impeachment as a means for Congress to punish members of the Executive Branch when the Executive refuses to enforce the law. America's problem has been a Congress and President that refuse to engage in oversight or enforce the law.

Pelosi's claim that impeachment is off the table raises serious questions:

(1) What does this message send to foreign fighters engaged in combat operations against the United States?

Foreign fighters are likely to consider this statement as an assertion that the United States government is not serious about asserting the rule of law in either the courts or the legislative arenas; and that the only option other nations have to check abusive Executive power is on the battlefield.

Insurgents in Iraq may reconsider negotiations terms with the US. Polisi's statement suggest there is no prospect that Americans well work on behalf of the rule of law to constrain abuses on the battlefield.

(2) How can an option be removed without conducting fact finding?

It's appropriate to remove an option when the option will not work; but to remove an option before understanding the problem is absurd.

(3) Is America serious about sovereignty and self-government?

No, merely about whining about problems, but making no plan to address them.

(4) Why have confidence in the American government?

No reason, it's a sham system that talks about problems, but refuses to entertain options.

(5) Is anything going to change?

American voters have every reason to conclude that a claim that things will change under the DNC are disingenuous. It doesn't matter what the DNC committees may find if they refuse to hold the President to account through impeachment.

(6) Why vote for the Democrats?

By removing the impeachment option, Pelosi isn't saying she'll clean house, but avoid cleaning before she refuses to inspect, a similar dereliction of duty as some might charge the RNC. Voting for change doesn't mean you're voting to endorse new people to do nothing.

(7) Who cares if the vote is incorrect?

If the policy under each party -- do nothing about impeachable offenses -- is the same, it doesn't matter whether the vote is correct or not. we'll still have an illegitimate, unresponsive, and reckless government.

(8) Why vote?

One of the arguments behind voting is to bring a change. Pelosi's statement doesn't offer a change, but more of the same. If things aren't going to change regardless how Americans vote, there's little incentive to vote. What advantage the DNC may have (because of possible RNC crossovers) could be nullified by the refusal of RNC to vote for the DNC. There is no difference.

* * *

Conclusion

Risk the bluff could backfire

For some, this approach taken at face value undermines confidence in a Constitutional republic and Democracy. The maneuver may be seen by some Irais as a poor example, supposedly enjoying the benefits of this failed system.

The DNC believes by appearing to remove the impeachment option from the DNC agenda, the potential loss of DNC support will be offset the unexcited GOP voters who will stay home.

Pelosi is playing a dangerous game if she is bluffing, as appears the case. There is a potential loss of voter confidence; some taking Pelosi at her word, may believe she's not serious about using all her lawful power to protect the constitution through impeachment.

Both the DNC and RNC leadership have demonstrated they are not serious about governing, or conducting credible investigations that may result in the lawful removal of the President.

Pelosi's statement may have taken the wind out of the sails of those in the RNC, leaning to hold this President accountable for war crimes, and inclined to support the DNC to protect American Constitutional principles.

Pelosi's statement may have reduced the incentive of some to vote; her statement as an abrogation of leadership, delegating oversight to foreign war crimes prosecutors. Perhaps when the war crimes affect American civilians as we saw in Argentina there might be some concern. It's time to find another place that's serious about governance and accountability. Not America.

Some wavering GOP voters, who may vote for the DNC, could stay home. By removing the impeachment option, the only thing holding any elected or appointed official accountable is the prospect of prosecution. This has failed. Electing a different party to similarly do nothing is a meaningless vote for false change.

Eliminate abuse, not options

The only thing worse than a war criminal is an enabling citizenry that does nothing but eliminate options to hold that war criminal to account. I could care less whether the DNC or RNC controls Congress. Nor do I care how many additional combat losses American families suffer in this illegal war. Congress might as well stay home, and delegate all powers to the President -- this DNC leadership does not appear serious about conducting fact finding, and possibly impeaching the President if they open their eyes.

No Reason for States Not to Prosecute President

One catalyst for American leadership accountability in both parties accountable is the credible threat of prosecution, outside Congress. That option has existed, and has been well known, yet not exercised. Whether the DNC or RNC is or is not in charge will not change whether that non-legislative option remains non-exercised.

Even if domestic prosecutors successfully convict Executive branch officials, agents, or contractors of criminal activity, the President retains the power to pardon. Despite grave breaches of Geneva and Constitutional violations, the opposing party does not appear to be serious about asserting the rule of law. The chances of a DNC Governor pardoning the President are small, though not negligible.

* * *

Issues and Concerns

1. New Leadership Needed in Both Parties

Time for the DNC to find new leadership that is willing to assert their oath, keep all lawful options on the table, and work to protect the Constitution. This DNC leadership doesn't appear credible in meeting their 5 USC 3331 oath of office obligations.

Both parties appear unintrested in finding credible leadership to protect the Constitution, only in assuming power. This is not leadership, but a power grab.

2. Only Foreign Combat Remains Credible Check on Presidential Abuses

War crimes prosecutors should take the Pelosi statement on face value: The only thing checking this President is external, foreign litigation before a war crimes tribunal. It is a problem when the American government in both parties refuses to protect the Constitution, keep all lawful options on the table, and conduct inquiry before making decisions on how to proceed.

3. Creating A Credible System to Protect the Constitution

Americans need to consider carefully which leadership is more interested in the rule of law, protecting the Constitution, and what lawful means are need to compel the Members of Congress to assert their oaths. The issue going forward is what is to be done when both leading parties refuse to keep all lawful options on the table, and appear inclined to assent to illegal conduct.

* * *

Recommendations

(a) State Prosecution of President

Pelosi's statement is a good reason why the State Attorney Generals should move, outside Congress, to lawfully prosecute the President. [ Prosecuting Sitting President Outside Impeachment ]

(b) State Action Against Members of Congress

When Congressional leaders refuse to investigate or keep the Constitutional option of impeachment on the table, the States may lawfully move to prosecute Federal officials for treason, and failing to protect the States' right to a republican form of government.

(c) Disbarment: State Targeting of DoJ Staff Counsel, US Attorneys

State legislators have a role when the Federal government refuses to credibly investigate impeachable offenses by the President. The States may be inclined to exercise some jurisdiction and lawfully prosecute DoJ Staff counsel who enabled this abuse of power. [ State Level Disbarment Efforts ]

(d) New Constitution

This statement might spark a discussion over a new Constitution to remedy this situation. When the Federal government refuses to assert the rule of law, and fails to hold elected officials accountable, state officials and local citizen may lawfully move to establish a more responsive system of government under a New Constitution. [ New Constitution: Agenda ]